Replies to This Discussion

How did an armed man get into the school? That's the question we should be asking.

The school had a "security system" consisting of a glass window (probably with one of those half-circular openings or a drawer) and a requirement that anyone not on the list show ID and sign in. Maybe he signed in. Maybe he shot the attendant behind the window through the glass and let himself in. Nothing in place there was going to stop him, obviously.

The security system was designed to keep ordinary n'er do wells out, not someone like this killer. Obviously, either a better first layer or a second, beefier layer of security would have had to be in place to prevent this massacre.

The 'over thinking' part seems a disability from my nerd mental developement. Sadly, I expect that 'over thinking' might not be a fault of the shooters. If they had conceived of other options, they might have atleast gotten some counceling or medication, or joined a 'wanabe shooters are us' 12 step program.

I figure that the use of a weapon, while at times for utilitarian purposes, should be logically reconsidered for antisocial purposes.

As a nerd, I have been bullied, assulted, and suffered property damage, by people that need a victim. It is possible that they need a victim, other than themselves. Given the degree of sometimes culturally sanctioned cruelity, or how a debased sense of humor can be expressed via violence, we do not know how many lash out with the desire for revenge or validation.

Many of us aspire to civility, but not all of us. Sometimes a gun might seem the only way to find power over others or even validation. If the culture models weapons as a source of power, how can be expect atleast a few of us not fall into that hole? As I watch TV, there is a message at times that proclaims the need for personal power, many times this is modeled by people with guns or the willingness to use force.

'I notice your "armed security guard or two" has become "several of the teachers" or a contingent of campus police.'

Yeah, I thought about it a bit more and decided to make clear I didn't mean just rent-a-cops

I think arming several teachers is about all one can practically hope for. Knowing that most teachers are very liberal (or assuming as much), probably only a few teachers would volunteer for the job, and ones with military experience would be preferred anyway.

I think it's rather obvious that if I were such an armed teacher and I was able to get to a room where an active shooting was going on (remember, he was shooting for about 10 minutes), he'd have no choice but to divert himself from his shooting of students. You believe otherwise? I find it rather obvious.

I don't believe I characterized your attitude toward the 2nd Amendment. Did I? Who is a "nutcase"? Someone who's behavior is odd? Someone who seems rather hostile (we have a Constitutional right to be hostile!)

"Harden one target and the shooter simply finds another." Not in an instance like this one. This was about his mother and his school, it seems. I'm not sure a shoot-up in a movie theater would have made his day in much the same way.

"So they must remind everyone that their gun rights trump the little kids in body bags." In much the same way, it seems, that, according to some, if the price of keeping defensive guns out of school is a few massacres, so be it.

"I didn't buy that argument before, and after your deeply dishonest ditto-head recitation of it, I buy it even less." And that despite not really offering any logical response to the notion that a few guns in the right hands might have meant only 5 or 10 or 15 kids dead rather than 20 kids.

If the best you can do is say we need to ban guns as the only solution, you'll have a long wait on your hands. What about the meantime?